Judges are increasingly facing personal attacks, threats, and other forms of intimidation that can endanger their families and undermine public confidence in our courts. A new Brennan Center report draws on interviews with 35 sitting and retired federal judges and makes recommendations on how to protect judges from rising threats. All of the interviewed judges — appointed by every president since Jimmy Carter — said that the dangers federal judges face are more serious today than in the past. And while they all said they had resisted pressure to alter their rulings to avoid threats or violence, many warned that fewer judges may be willing to bear those risks over time.
Members of the legal profession must heed this warning. Lawyers, bar associations, law firms, and other legal organizations have a critical role to play. Here are five steps they can take.
Speak out in defense of judges doing their job
We can protect judges by rejecting false or violent rhetoric that puts them in danger. That does not mean insulating judges from criticism. Public discussion of judges and their rulings — including sometimes in harsh terms — is an essential part of our democracy. But not when it’s done in a manner that endangers their safety and threatens judicial independence.
The legal community should speak out promptly and publicly when judges are threatened with violence, face baseless claims of bias or corruption, experience doxing, or are threatened with removal from office for performing their lawful duties.
The American Bar Association has provided a useful model. Last year, the then-bar association president warned that the organization was “alarmed by the growing pattern of lawmakers threatening or starting impeachment processes against sitting judges because of disagreement with rulings they have made.” She added that “the independence of the judiciary is the most essential safeguard of a free society” and said that threats to remove judges for decisions based on the law “cannot be tolerated.”
The legal community should reinforce this message by emphasizing that judicial decisions can be challenged through lawful mechanisms, such as appeals — but threats, intimidation, doxing, and the use of violent imagery are never appropriate responses.
Hold events for lawyers to promote civic education
The legal community should better equip lawyers to explain to the broader public why an independent judiciary is essential to the rule of law. Chief Justice John Roberts recognized the importance of civic education in his 2019 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, warning that “civic education has fallen by the wayside” and that, in an age “when social media can instantly spread rumor and false information on a grand scale, the public’s need to understand our government, and the protections it provides, is ever more vital.” Lawyers are uniquely positioned to help fill this civic education gap, given their understanding of the Constitution, the judicial process, and the principles underlying judicial independence.
Bar associations and other legal institutions should expand events and continuing legal education opportunities focused on judicial independence, threats against judges, and the federal judiciary’s role in our constitutional democracy. The recently launched Justice in Motion tour offers an important model. In July 2026, dozens of retired judges, lawyers, and civic leaders, traveled through Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to engage the public on why the rule of law and an independent judiciary are essential to American democracy. This initiative demonstrates that civic education can be nonpartisan, accessible, and rooted in shared democratic values.
Enforce professional standards
Lawyers who are professionally licensed and members of bar associations are subject to rules they must follow to remain in good standing. Lawyers must remain free to engage in vigorous public debate, challenge legal decisions they oppose, and criticize judges, including in terms that some may find disrespectful. However, legal organizations also have a responsibility to hold their members accountable for ethical and legal violations, particularly when their conduct risks inciting harassment against judges or undermining the rule of law.
For example, the legal profession can use attorney disciplinary processes to enforce professional conduct rules, as it did when Donald Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani had his law license suspended and was later disbarred based on false statements he made in connection with efforts to overturn the 2020 election. (Guiliani was not accused of inciting hararssment of judges.) The New York State Bar Association likewise removed Guiliani from its membership.
Advocate for funding and reforming judicial security
Lawyers and legal organizations should also advocate for sustained funding and structural reforms to federal judicial security after a comprehensive review of existing protocols. Although federal judicial security funding remained flat from fiscal year 2023 through fiscal year 2025, Congress increased it by 19 percent between fiscal years 2025 and 2026 — the full amount requested by the judicial branch. But one year of increased funding is not enough; Congress must continue investing in judicial security.
Congress should also address a deeper structural concern: The U.S. Marshals Service, the federal judiciary’s primary security force, is housed within the Department of Justice. A majority of judges interviewed for the Brennan Center report expressed concern that the executive branch could interfere with the service’s judicial security functions. For example, the Trump administration has reportedly redirected marshals from courthouse security in some jurisdictions to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Lawyers are well positioned to advocate for reforms that respect separation of powers while ensuring the judiciary has the resources and institutional control necessary to protect judges and preserve judicial independence.
Support efforts to improve judicial security at the state level
Lastly, the legal community can advocate for stronger judicial security protections at the state level. Many threats to judges originate within the jurisdictions where they work and live, as evidenced by the tragic 2020 attack on U.S. District Judge Esther Salas’s family by a disgruntled local attorney who obtained her home address online. After the assailant murdered her 20-year-old son, Daniel, and seriously wounded her husband, New Jersey responded by enacting Daniel’s Law, which restricts the public disclosure of personally identifiable information belonging to judges and their immediate family members. State-level protections for address information are inconsistent, however, and most laws that do exist put the burden on judges to monitor and submit requests to protect their information. The legal community can advocate to fortify state data privacy protections for both federal and state judges.
